Chennai Court February 1946 Judgments
Reddem Babi Reddi and anr. Vs. Vadla Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ409
Rajamannar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsiff of Anantapur for a declaration of their right to the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed under a sale deed dated 10th June, 1940, from one Gangamma and Basanna. The appellants resisted the suit, claiming title to the property under a sale deed from the third defendant.2. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one Gorba Ramayya, who died issueless. The two questions of fact which the lower Courts had to determine were (1) whether the plaintiffs' vendors had any title to the property and (2) whether the third defendant was entitled to the property. Both the Courts found that the third defendant's relationship with the deceased-Ramayya was not satisfactorily proved and that he could not be held entitled to the property as Ramayya's heir. Of the two vendors of the plaintiffs, it was conceded that the second vendor Basanna had no right to the property. But t...
Tag this Judgment!Redden Basi, Reddi and anr. Vs. Vadla Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad537
Rajamannar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsif of Anantpur for a declaration of their right to the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed under a sale deed dated 10-6-1940 from one Gangamma and Basanna. The appellants resisted the suit, claiming title to the property under a sale deed from defendant 3. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one Gooba Ramayya, who died issueless. The two questions of fact which the lower Courts had to determine were (1) whether the plaintiff's vendors had any title to the property, and (2) whether defendant 3 was entitled to the property. Both the Courts found that defendant 3's relationship with the deceased Ramayya was not satisfactorily proved and that he could not be held entitled to the property as Ramayya's heir. Of the two vendors of the plaintiffs, it was conceded that the second vendor Basanna had no right to the property. But the plaintiffs contended that Ganga...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidasa Chetty Vs. Dodda Siddha Chetty anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad56; (1946)2MLJ110
Happell, J.1. The petitioner admittedly complied with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 89 in making a deposit to have a sale set aside, except for the fact that by mistake he was Re. 1-4-0 short in the amount which he had deposited in respect of commission. The deficiency he made up as soon as it was pointed out to him, but after the thirty days had expired. The learned District Munsiff excused the delay on the ground that it was due to a bona fide mistake. But the learned District Judge of Coimbatore has taken the view that the District Munsiff had not jurisdiction to excuse the delay.2. For the petitioner I have been referred to cases decided by the Patna High Court and it has been argued that the delay can be excused either on the ground that the mistake was not that of the payer but of the clerk who received the lodgment schedule who should have pointed out the error, or that the small deficiency which led to the delay should be excused on the principle of de minimis non curate le...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Atmakuri Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad262; (1946)2MLJ476
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal and the civil revision petition which is filed in the alternative, arise out of an order of the District Judge of Guntur dismissing an appeal from the order of the Sub-Collector of Ongole setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree for rent under the Madras Estates Land Act. The appellant here is the Rajah of Venkatagiri who is the decree-holder. The decree was passed on the 20 th August, 1936, against the respondent and three others for rent on a particular holding, it would appear that belore this decree was passed the holding had become sub-divided and an application had been made for the issue of separate pattas, but, we have no evidence of the precise date on which this division of the land was recognised by the land-holder. Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force on the 22nd March, 1938. In 1939 the decree-holder sought to execute the decree by the sale of the holding. Thereafter there was an objection by the present respondent on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Singara Mudali Vs. Ibrahim Baig Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad94; (1946)2MLJ103
Chndrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The defendant purchased the properties under Ex. P-2 from three minors and their mother Govindammal, subject, no doubt, to an agreement to convey the properties in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers, Ex. P-1. The plaintiff seeks to enforce sepecific performance of the agreement, evidenced by Ex. P-1 and referred to in Ex. P-2, and is met by the answer that so far as the minors who sold to the defendant are concerned, there could be no decree for such specific performance and therefore the defendant who claims under a purchase from them, is not liable either. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit altogether but, on appeal, the Subordinate Judge granted to the plaintiff a decree for specific performance in so far as the share of Govindammal was concerned, that is, the mother and one of the four vendors. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal, urging that he should have been granted a decree for specific performance of the agreement to convey, or ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Panchapagesa Ayyar Vs. R. Rajamani Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad72; (1946)2MLJ121
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In execution of a decree obtained on foot of a promissory note executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant who is the appellant in this second appeal he purchased the suit properties. The promissory note was for the interest due under the mortgage deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in the year 1931. The plaintiffs, who are the two sons of the second defendant, have brought the present suit seven years after the purchase by the first defendant, for the redemption of their 2/3rd share in the mortgaged properties, alleging that the sale in execution of the small cause decree obtained on foot of the promissory note is not binding against their interests in the properties, because the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code were violated They also claim an account from the first defendant of the mesne profits received by him from the date when he got into possession of the properties under ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao Bahadur Ravula Subba Rao and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ332
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This reference arises out of an application made by one Hariprasada Rao before the Income-tax Officer for the renewal of the registration of a firm composed of himself and his brother Rao Bahadur Ravula Subba Rao. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it was not signed by both the partners personally as required by Rule 6 of the Rules made under Section 59 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which provides:Any firm to whom a certificate of registration has been granted under Rule 41 may apply to the Income-tax Officer to have the certificate of registration renewed for a subsequent year. Such application shall be signed personally by all the partners (not being minors) of the firm, or where the application is made after the dissolution of the firm, by all persons (not being minors) who were partners in the firm immediately before dissolution and by the legal representatives of any such person who is deceased and accompanied by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.A.S. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ330
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, O.C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti who at all material times was carrying on a money-lending business in Rangoon. He guaranteed a loan granted by a bank in Rangoon to the Chettiar firm of S.A. RM. and as the loan was not repaid by the borrower, he was called upon to make good the amount, Rs. 19,670, under his agreement of guarantee. The assessee sought to deduct this sum as a loss when estimating his profits for the year of account 1939-40.2. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the deduction, but on appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee's contention was accepted. The Tribunal's decision was based on a common practice among Nattukottai Ghettiars. It is their custom to borrow from banks for the purpose of lending out the sums so obtained on higher rates of interest. The banks require such overdrafts to be guaranteed by other Chettiars. The Chettiars stand surety for one another in these...
Tag this Judgment!Kolappurath Achuthan Nair Vs. Pachakkil Thayyil Choyikutty's children ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ370
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant was a tenant of the suit lands within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act and his eviction was obtained under Clause (6) of Section 20 of the Act on the ground that the holding was required by the landlord bonajide for building purposes for his tarwad. The lands were transferred to the seventh defendant, a stranger, on 8th June, 1942 and the suit for the restoration ?of the lands was filed by the appellant on 22nd December, 1942. It has been dismissed as being premature and the question is whether the decision is correct.2. Section 21 of the Act confers on the tenant a right to sue for restoration of the lands in certain cases and Section 43 prescribes the period of limitation for such suits. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides that in any case in which eviction is obtained on the ground specified in Clause (5) of Section 20, subject to the provisions of Section 43, if the landlord who obtains such eviction transfers any of the lands to any perso...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rao Bahadur Ravula Subba Rao an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR232(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri, J.)This reference arises out of an application made by one Hariprasada Rao before the Income-tax Officer for the renewal of the registration of a firm composed of himself and his brother Rao Bahadur Ravula Subba Rao. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it was not signed by both the partners personally as required by rule 6 of the rules made under Section 59 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which provides :-'Any firm to whom a certificate of registration has been granted under rule 4 may apply to the Income-tax Officer to have the certificate of registration renewed for a subsequent year. Such application shall be signed personally by all the partners (not being minors) of the firm, or where the application is made after the dissolution of the firm by all persons (not being minors) who were partners in the firm immediately before dissolution and by the legal representatives of any such per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »